Very few people have written clearly about U.G. Many had an immediate reaction to what he put forth because he doesn't serve up any comforting teaching to distract you with. He wasn't selling anything. He never talked about his state unless someone asked about it. With his friends, there was mostly chit chat, not philosophy. He never advised anyone about meditation or what to do to change yourself. No goal or state was ever held up saying this is what you should reach for or understand. He only talked about the process of perception and the conditioned state that we all find ourselves in. He talked about the contradictions that so many have, the brainwashing that has taken place from birth, the constant demand for pleasure, the total failure of seeking. He talked about the illusory self and fear and how the conditioned mind could never free itself.

Here is an interesting extract from a book published in France, "The Useless Self", from someone who also knew U.G.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows:

There is no such thing as a seat located in any particular individual. What there is, is thought. Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. Every time a thought is born you are born.

If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

...he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising... SN 12.15

Therefore, it seems the doctrine of U.G.K was different to the Pali suttas (SN 22.59), which say thinking is not-self (anatta).

While the Pali suttas (SN 22.81) do say 'self' is a product of ignorant thought fabrication, the Pali suttas, unlike U.G.K, do not say every thought is a 'self' or an 'entity'.

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

Is there something you are trying to say? Please speak in your own words.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows:

There is no such thing as a seat located in any particular individual. What there is, is thought. Whenever a thought takes its birth there, you have created an entity or a point, and in reference to that point you are experiencing things. Every time a thought is born you are born.

If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows:

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

...he does not take a stand about ‘my self.’ He has no perplexity or doubt that what arises is only suffering arising... SN 12.15

Therefore, it seems the doctrine of U.G.K was different to the Pali suttas (SN 22.59), which say thinking is not-self (anatta).

While the Pali suttas (SN 22.81) do say 'self' is a product of ignorant thought fabrication, the Pali suttas, unlike U.G.K, do not say every thought is a 'self' or an 'entity'.

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that.

The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows:

If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows:

What UGK meant is only through "thought" one has the sense of self (false self) .
Without any thoughts , nothing is conceivable .

By the way , UGK has no doctrine whatsoever !

Yes. Through thought you conceive of a self. This is very similar to what Bhante Punnaji says about the constituents of perception in his explanation of paticca-samupadda.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

Is there something you are trying to say? Please speak in your own words.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

The impression gained here is U.G.K thought thought/thinking is a self, as follows:
If this is true, this gives the impression freedom from "selfing" can only be temporary because a human life cannot function without thought, which included the life of U.G.K; where every word U.G.K ever spoke was obviously the product of thought (vaci sankhara).Therefore, freedom from suffering could only be temporary if every time a thought is born the 'self' or 'you' are born. The Pali suttas say conceiving the idea of self is suffering, as follows: Therefore, it seems the doctrine of U.G.K was different to the Pali suttas (SN 22.59), which say thinking is not-self (anatta).

While the Pali suttas (SN 22.81) do say 'self' is a product of ignorant thought fabrication, the Pali suttas, unlike U.G.K, do not say every thought is a 'self' or an 'entity'.

What UGK meant is only through "thought" one has the sense of self (false self) .
Without any thoughts , nothing is conceivable .

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

Is there something you are trying to say? Please speak in your own words.

Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and does not yearn. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he yearn?

I am referencing a great post and contribution by another member and that I think is great to the conv in general as it is a Buddhist perspective-bridge passage for some of the focuses that other traditions in particular this teacher have given.

You seem like your looking for some kind of confrontation Not everyone is hostile and living intensely online. Some are just enjoying great posts by others and delighting in little tidbits of wisdom that were unknown.

Have a great holiday season with friends and loved ones and don't look to deep into things were you miss simple points lol

Just for information .. There were two Mr Ks born 23 years apart .. Mr Jiddu Krishnamurti the more famous one and Mr U. G. Krishnamurti the less famous one. They both were born in modern day Andhra Pradesh, claimed to be "self-realized sages" and had in early life come in touch of Theosophical Society in some way.

Just for information .. There were two Mr Ks born 23 years apart .. Mr Jiddu Krishnamurti the more famous one and Mr U. G. Krishnamurti the less famous one. They both were born in modern day Andhra Pradesh, claimed to be "self-realized sages" and had in early life come in touch of Theosophical Society in some way.

FYI, I am not aware that either of them ever said they were self-realized sages.
You are correct that both had early ties to the Theosophical Society. JK was being groomed by them to be 'the world teacher', which he rejected and left them in the lurch. U.G., otoh, was born into a family of Theosophists. He was a lecturer for them and traveled the world. He also rejected this. This was their connection but U.G. did not meet JK till later on.

FYI, I am not aware that either of them ever said they were self-realized sages.

My choice of words were wrong. They never claimed to be self-realized or sages. However they basked in the attention that they were thought of as sages or seers.

I am not accusing them of anything. They did not create ashrams and take people for a ride. If people thought of me as an interesting person and flocked to listen to me I would not refuse the attention either. And both of them did say interesting things.

FYI, I am not aware that either of them ever said they were self-realized sages.

My choice of words were wrong. They never claimed to be self-realized or sages. However they basked in the attention that they were thought of as sages or seers.

I am not accusing them of anything. They did not create ashrams and take people for a ride. If people thought of me as an interesting person and flocked to listen to me I would not refuse the attention either. And both of them did say interesting things.

A 19 minute video of U.G. talking with various people in Gstaad, Switzerland in 1988. This was what it was typically like when you went to visit him. There were always people showing up and trying to construct some kind of semblance of an understanding of what U.G. meant by the natural state and the ensuing outcome of their questions.

Last edited by Saengnapha on Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.